Texas Death Penalty Blog

Post navigation

About Michael Landauer/Digital Communities Manager

I am the Digital Communities Manager for The Dallas Morning News. I oversee letters to the editor and our Voices programs, which include volunteer columnists who spend a year writing for us. I also oversee other major reader engagement efforts, like reader blogs, social media and comments and stuff like that.

After 16 years behind bars, Anthony Graves was set free after a prosecutor determined that he had been wrongly convicted based on eyewitness testimony that was later recanted. Texas Monthly devoted unprecedented resources and space to the story, and 48 Hours Mystery on CBS chronicled the whole thing, too. Now, CBS is returning to the story this Saturday night with new material on what has happened since the decision was made not to retry Graves in the infamous murder.

From a 48 Hours Mystery press release:

Despite gaining his freedom and good name back, Graves did not receive complete justice. According to a 2009 Texas law, those exonerated can receive $80,000 for every year they were imprisoned; however, because two words – “actual innocence” – were missing from Graves’ prison release papers, Texas refused to compensate him.
“They (48 HOURS MYSTERY) laid out my case for the whole world to see and as a result it made Texas do the right thing. I owe it all to 48 Hours, for first taking an interest in my case, seeing the injustice for what it was, and then showing the rest of the world,” said Graves.

In 2011, Texas Governor Rick Perry signed a bill that will afford $1.4 million in compensation for Graves’ wrongful imprisonment.

On Saturday, March 17th, 48 HOURS MYSTERY correspondent Richard Schlesinger details this complicated miscarriage of justice. He speaks with Graves and his family and two former prosecutors who battle over the truthfulness of the evidence. Schlesinger also talks with the former journalism students and members of the media who helped shed light on this injustice.

Anthony Graves has been compensated financially for his time spent in prison after being wrongly accused and convicted and shamelessly pursued without good reason by a misguided prosecutor. Of course, nothing can give Graves back the life he lost in…

Having read a lot about the Anthony Graves case, and having blogged quite a bit about it, too, I was interested to see what I would learn from Saturday night’s special on the Anthony Graves case (aptly titled, “Grave…

The Anthony Graves case will be featured this weekend, Saturday night, on CBS’ 48 Hours Mystery. Just in time for the 175th anniversary of Texas winning its independence from Mexico. We remain independent, in that as other states cut back…

One recycled line from the Troy Davis debate kept bugging me, and I couldn’t put a finger on why. I even retweeted the line myself, but then felt guilty later. Then a frequent reader and former Voices columnist I’ve admired for a long time hit the nail on the head when he wrote me and included this line: “Where doubt exists, why should the accused be locked up in the first place?”

Exactly!

I feel like the Troy Davis crowd is sorta glossing over that fact. There are not two levels of GUILTY. You are either guilty beyond a reasonable doubt or you’re not. You don’t lock someone up because you really, really think he may be guilty, but then don’t execute him because you’re not 100 percent sure. There’s no legal mechanism for that. To suggest otherwise is to make up your own rules.

There were plenty of reasonable arguments on the Troy Davis side, to be sure. But that one is sort of a logical shortcut that takes you nowhere.

I was alarmed and disappointed this morning to see the comments from Troy Davis’ attorney, Thomas Ruffin Jr.: “This night, the state of Georgia legally lynched a brave, a good and indeed, an innocent man.”

Racially charged language does not move the debate forward. In fact, it can be a distraction to those who push for the abolition of the death penalty because often the stats on race and the death penalty are misrepresented or flat out misunderstood. Dudley Sharp (of all people) has this issue exactly right in an essay at prodeathpenalty.com.

Troy Davis was not executed because he was black. To call his execution a “lynching” is a disservice to the thousands of black men who were actually lynched in the Deep South. The era of lynching black men is perhaps the ugliest scar on this nation’s history. Certainly, if Troy Davis is innocent, his execution is a terrible injustice, but we are capable of finding the words to express our outrage over the flaws in the justice system without needlessly stirring up racial tension.

Besides, doing so undermines some very real, valid discussions of race and the death penalty. Despite Sharp’s analysis, I still find it very troubling that white victims’ deaths are far more likely to be avenged by the state than black victims’. I also find it very troubling that black defendants are far more likely to be represented by a pro bono or public defender than whites, a major determining factor in whether a capital case ends in a death sentence. And, right now, I am very concerned that Texas is trying its hardest to execute a black man, Duane Buck, without giving him a fair sentencing hearing free of racial testimony. (In his original trial, the court allowed an expert to tell the jury that blacks are more dangerous than whites.)

These are valid racial justice issues. The debate and discussion of the death penalty should focus on these issues and not on the rhetoric of race wars.

This just in from the Texas Defender Service attorneys for Duane Buck:

Prosecutor in Case Where Government Relied on Race Testimony at Trial Urges Texas Officials to Stop Duane Buck’s Execution

Houston, Texas, September 12, 2011 – Today, a former Harris County Assistant District Attorney who prosecuted Duane Buck is urging state officials to halt Mr. Buck’s execution next week because “[n]o individual should be executed without being afforded a fair trial, untainted by considerations of race.” Linda Geffin, who served as second-chair prosecutor in the State of Texas vs. Duane Buck in 1997, sent a letter this morning to Governor Rick Perry, the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles, Attorney General Greg Abbott, and Harris County District Attorney Patricia Lykos, urging them to intervene and stop Mr. Buck’s September 15 execution.

In her letter, Ms. Geffin says she “felt compelled to step forward” after reading about the clemency petition and a motion in federal court recognizing that former Attorney General John Cornyn had previously acknowledged the “improper injection of race in the sentencing hearing in Mr. Buck’s case.”

On May 5, 1997, Mr. Buck was convicted of capital murder in Harris County for the July 1995 shooting deaths of Debra Gardner and Kenneth Butler. A third person, Phyllis Taylor, was also shot, but survived her wound. Ms. Taylor has forgiven Mr. Buck and does not want him executed.

During Mr. Buck’s trial, psychologist Walter Quijano testified, based on several factors, that he did not believe Mr. Buck would be dangerous in the future. On cross-examination, the prosecutor elicited improper testimony from Dr. Quijano that the fact that Mr. Buck was African-American increased the likelihood of his being dangerous in the future. The State urged the jury in its closing argument to rely on Dr. Quijano’s testimony. The jury did so, found that Mr. Buck would be a future danger, and he was sentenced to death.

After Mr. Buck’s trial, but while his case was pending on appeal, on June 9, 2000, in a highly-unusual move, then-Attorney General John Cornyn issued a press release calling for the retrial of six individuals who had been sentenced to death based on improper introduction of, and reliance on, race as a factor in sentencing. The Attorney General identified Mr. Buck’s case as one of those six cases, stated that Texas would not contest federal appeals in those six cases, and that if the attorneys for the six identified defendants raised claims challenging the government’s reliance on race at sentencing, the Attorney General would not object.

Then-Attorney General Cornyn first confessed error based on the government’s reliance on Dr. Quijano’s testimony in the case of Victor Saldaño. The Attorney General stated: “As I explained in a filing before the United States Supreme Court…it is inappropriate to allow race to be considered as a factor in our criminal justice system….[T]he United States Supreme Court agreed. The people of Texas want and deserve a system that affords the same fairness to everyone.”

Despite this concession, the improper racial testimony in Mr. Buck’s case has not been redressed. Mr. Buck is the only one of the six death row inmates identified by the Attorney General who was not granted an opportunity to have a colorblind sentencing.

The clemency petition, which was filed on August 31, asks the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles and Governor Perry to intervene. In it, attorneys for Mr. Buck state: “Five out of the six cases in which Attorney General John Cornyn conceded error resulted in new sentencing hearings. Mr. Buck has not received the same corrective process. The State of Texas cannot and should not tolerate an execution on the basis of an individual’s race, particularly where this State’s highest legal officer has acknowledged the error, not only in similarly situated cases, but in this case.”

Ms. Geffin’s letter concludes: “I now join Phyllis Taylor, the surviving victim, in asking for the intervention of the Board of Pardons and Paroles, Governor Rick Perry, Attorney General Greg Abbott and Harris County District Attorney Patricia Lykos. All of these parties should be motivated, as I am, to do everything within their power to ensure that our justice system is not tainted by unconstitutional considerations of race.”

It was disturbing to hear people cheer last night when it was announced that Rick Perry had overseen a record number of executions in the modern era. I have to remind myself that these people are cheering justice, an abstract principle, not the ending of human life. On the flip side, though, can you imagine the same crowd’s reaction if people at a liberal event cheered a record number of abortions? I realize it’s apples to oranges, but there is a basic respect for human life. Even when Americans used to hang people from gallows, they did it with a basic level of dignity and humanity.

“The fact that in 2011, Americans, or any audience in a civilized country, would give prolonged and loud applause at the fact that our governor has presided over 234 executions in one state — more than any other governor in the history of a state — is a disturbing and disgraceful commentary on America’s unwillingness and inability to move beyond embracing violence as a cure for social problems. Inherent flaws in this state under Gov. Perry’s tenure are well documented, and questions need to arise about executing those subject to racial prejudice, innocence and mental health issues. It’s disturbing to hear Gov. Perry say he’s never struggled with any case when so many questions continually arise regarding implementing the death penalty in this state under his tenure. It is well documented that the capital punishment institution in Texas is inherently flawed and mistakes have indeed been made in wrongly convicting, incarcerating and executing the innocent.”

On a related note, tomorrow night is a special SMU event at 7-9 p.m. in McCord Auditorium: “Ending the Cycles of Violence: Reflections on Compassion, Forgiveness and Healing.” According to a press release:

The event will feature a diverse gathering of religious and peace leaders, including 9/11-hate crime survivor Rais Bhuiyan of WorldWithoutHate.org; Mavis Belisle of the Dallas Peace Center; Bill McElvaney, professor emeritus of SMU’s Perkins School of Theology; SMU Chaplain Stephen Rankin; Acharya Shree Yogeesh of the Siddhayatan [Hindu-Jain Tirth] Spiritual Retreat Center; Brother ChiSing, a Thich Nhat Hahn-ordained Buddhist minister and director of the Dallas Meditation Center; and Hind Jirrah, co-founder of the Texas Muslim Women’s Foundation. The moderator will be Dianne Solis of The Dallas Morning News. The free event is sponsored by SMU’s Embrey Human Rights Program in Dedman College and the Dallas Peace Center.

With Gov. Rick Perry in the presidential race, a lot of folks are taking a hard look at his record on the death penalty. Despite the fact that Texas leads the nation in DNA exonerations, Perry has never backed any significant justice reform. He has delayed and disrupted the search for truth in the Todd Willingham case, in which there is evidence that Texas may have executed an innocent man (on Perry’s watch, despite warnings before the execution).

Since becoming governor, Rick Perry has signed off on 234 executions. He has issued only one commutation that was not ordered by the Supreme Court. In Texas, the governor has the right to order a 30-day reprieve in case there are any doubts or questions that need to be addressed — or for any reason at all, really. Perry doesn’t use that power.

In the one case where he granted clemency, it was for Kenneth Foster, a black man who drove the getaway car after the killer and the victim had an argument that turned deadly. It seems that when the victim is white, giving a ride to the killer in Texas is a hanging offense.

In most states with the death penalty, non-killers are not even eligible for the death penalty. Perry has allowed the execution of two other non-killers, but in this case, he had a problem with the fact that the killer and the driver were tried at the same time, an absurd practice that has been disallowed.

Surely, some will see this record as a plus. But others, especially in regions of the country where Texas’ obsession with the death penalty seems foreign and outdated, it won’t help. By contrast, George W. Bush presided over far fewer executions. There were serious questions about his approach, too, but he did commute the sentence of Henry Lee Lucas when it because clear, outside of court review, that Lucas had not committed all the crimes he claimed. Bush put his finger on the scale and got the parole board to recommend a commutation. Bush also very publicly weighed the case of Karla Faye Tucker before deciding not to intervene. Even though he allowed the execution, he came across as a thoughtful Christian in his deliberation. You could tell the decision weighed on him. There’s never been evidence that Perry has been even as deliberative as Bush in these matters, and that’s saying something.

Convicted serial killer Anthony Sowell is sentenced to death in an Ohio court.
Jurors on July 22 convicted Sowell of 11 counts of aggravated murder and more than 70 other charges, including abusing corpses and kidnapping.
The convictions ended a saga that began in October 2009 with the discovery of the first two victims’ remains inside Sowell’s home in Cleveland. He eventually was accused of killing at least 11 women ranging in age from 25 to 52.

Thank goodness for this. Surely, executing Sowell will send a strong message to others that we will not tolerate serial killers. I imagine that there are dozens of people out there considering stalking and killing several random victims, but now they will have to carefully consider whether that is worth the risk of a death sentence.

How ignorant and emotional of us.

Sorry if my sarcasm seems insensitive to the families of the victims, but it is even more insensitive to assume that such retribution will bring closure or any sense of satisfaction to these poor people — or that they are unanimous or monolithic in how they will deal with their loss.

Jacquielynn Floyd wrote a great column today, one that I agree with about 90 percent. (I don’t think any execution is ever just, but that’s a personal matter.) But her reasoning on how court’s should deal with a victim’s wishes is spot on:

[T]here’s a tricky line between giving victims of crime the voice they deserve and turning our legal system into a do-it-yourself justice machine.

As balky and prone to error as our lumbering process is, it’s carried out by professionals employed by the state and by ostensibly disinterested jurors.

I just hope that she and others who do not oppose the death penalty outright remember that the next time prosecutors use the emotional pleas of retribution to send someone to death row. Retribution is one of the words that serves as the underpinnings of the modern capital punishment system. It was cited by the Supreme Court as one of two reasons to have the death penalty. The word’s origins come from “to give back” or “to restore.” So in one sense, when a family demands retribution, that’s OK. But when a family rejects it, doesn’t want it, we ignore them. That’s not blind justice. That’s substituting our own desire for retribution for the victims’.

Another interesting argument today from one of our new Voices columnists. We just chose former State District Judge Ada Brown, a Perry appointee, as a volunteer columnist. She had this to say on the issue of remorse:

Re: “Chance to Reconcile — Shooting victim should be able to meet attacker,” Tuesday Editorials.

As a former prosecutor and criminal court judge, I’m perplexed by the arguments made to spare the life of killers like Karla Faye Tucker and Mark Stroman. There seems to be a public preoccupation with whether, after being sentenced to death, the criminal has “changed” and if they are “sorry” about having committed capital murder.

Remorse may have its place in sentencing a cat burglar, but is it relevant in deciding whether someone should have their death sentence commuted?

Are Stroman’s two murder victims any less dead if he is sorry about killing them? Does finding Jesus or having regret on death row mean that the doors to death row should fly open and all death sentences should be reversed?

I think it’s time we take a more adult view of the death penalty. If its purpose is to deter crime and protect society, a convicted capital murderer’s remorse really isn’t relevant in weighing what must be done to protect society. In my opinion, actual innocence is the only thing that should disturb a jury’s verdict in a capital case.

Whether a murderer’s remorse is genuine is an issue between him and God — not the parole board.

Strong letter. But why shouldn’t a parole board consider remorse? Is there no place in the justice system for mercy? I’d be more willing to accept that if I thought the justice system was error-free. It’s not.

As the hour of Mark Stroman’s execution approach, a man who says he was also a juror on the Stroman case took the time to write me about my blog post yesterday. I agreed not to name him. He was a little shaken, he says, when members of a group called Reprieve, out of the UK, showed up one day at his home to talk with him. But he wanted to make a few points:

During the guilt/Innocence phase deliberations everyone was in quick agreement. There was very little discussion if it was a “capital crime” or not. It was very clear to us that he was robbing the store. I don’t remember how long we were out but it was not very long. No one was aggressive as Jenifer claims.

During the penalty phase there was again very little discussion. We were asked to answer two questions:
a. Was Mark a continued threat to society.
b. Was there any reason to grant him leniency.
If you answer yes to the first question and no to the second, then he would receive the death penalty. There was very little discussion around the first question and only a little around the second. … I only really remember one instance of aggression, which was directed at me. I told the lady to calm down and sit down, which she did. I left the jury room feeling confident that everyone agreed with our decision.

Frankly I’m not sure why I’m writing you; my head is telling me to just let it go, but I’m really upset with the point of view she has created of the Jury. It all went very smoothly, and frankly there were no bullies (unless of course I was one and didn’t realize it, which I highly doubt).

If she had doubts during the trial, she should have stood up and said something. A man’s life was at stake. Toward the end, we all voted and I was toward the end of the polling. Everyone was voting the death penalty. I stood up and said we need to talk about this longer. I didn’t think leniency was in order, but I wanted to make sure no one felt pressured. So we stopped and talked some more. I might have prolonged the discussion about 10 minutes, but no one stood up and said there was reason to spare his life. This was her chance; saying something 9 years later the day before his execution is too late and just showmanship for Reprieve and other anti-death penalty groups.

This press release just came through the inbox (bold added for emphasis by me):

On the eve of the execution of Mark Stroman in Texas, a juror that sentenced him to death admits that she made a mistake at trial — and asks that his life be spared

One of twelve jurors who served in the trial of Mark Stroman in 2002 has made a last-minute appeal to the Governor of Texas to spare his life.

With only 24 hours until Mr Stroman’s scheduled execution, Jenifer Sheehan has come forward to reveal how she was badly misled by the District Attorney Greg Davis during the trial. She has also expressed regret at her decision in the case, insisting that she was not given an opportunity to understand the wishes of the victims.

“When I walked into that courtroom to serve as a juror I believed in the Death Penalty, but as time has passed I have come to deeply regret my decision to sentence Mark to death. Unfortunately, although I had doubts when we were deliberating, I was not able to stand up to the other bullies on the jury.

“I was misled by the prosecution into believing that the murder of Mr. Patel was a capital crime and know now that Mark did not go into the gas station to rob Mr. Patel. I am sure of that and so I should not have taken the decision to give him the death sentence because his crime did not warrant the death penalty.

“I also did not know that surviving victim Rais Bhuiyan, did not want Mark to be executed, and the other victims supported his efforts. The prosecution presented the evidence in such a way as to give us just the opposite impression. If I had known that they had such a strong belief in forgiveness there is no way that I would have taken the decision for him to be executed.

“I know that some of the other jurors feel like I do and I urge them to come forward as I am in this appeal for Mark’s life to be spared. I also urge Rick Perry to listen to my voice as a juror as I say that I made the wrong decision and that Mark Stroman should not be executed.”

Mark Stroman was sentenced to death for a series of shootings in the aftermath of September 11, 2001, which left two men dead and one man injured.

Normally, I would say that a juror has a right to reconsider, but that it means nothing. After all, the system has very strict rules about what information can be given to the jury, and if jurors learn some things after the fact that change their opinion, well, that’s just part of the process.

But in this case, I am troubled by the notion that the prosecutors convinced the jury that the victims wanted retribution and that they made the legal technical argument that the death of Mr. Patel was a robbery. How can they argue it both ways? It’s a hate crime and a robbery?

That said, I am not sure the family’s wishes should be considered too heavily. After all, I don’t think it’s right to allow victims to choose the punishment for a crime. Otherwise, why have a legal system at all?

Plus, and this is a hard fact for a jury to swallow, and I wish they were warned more ahead of time, but it is now a FACT that Mr. Patel was shot in a robbery. The jury itself accepted that as a FACT, and it will remain a FACT forever. Appeals courts look into all kinds of processes for possible flaws, but they don’t second-guess what jurors accept as facts unless there is substantial new evidence to do so.

I do wish more jurors would speak out about their doubts, though. Maybe we’d see the bar raised higher … where it should be.

Post navigation

This blog is the leading forum for people on all sides of the debate to discuss issues related to the death penalty. It includes news from Dallas Morning News reporters as well as commentary from members of the editorial board, which opposes the death penalty.